- 0 Posts
- 18 Comments
I would want regulations only if we were talking about opening crates or other forms of gambling. But this is as upfront and crystal clear as possible where you pay money and you get a skin unlike opening crates. We can all agree that the horse cosmetic is a ripoff but it’s open and upfront about it’s shittiness with no aspect of gambling. Unless I’m forgetting something, gambling microtransactions are the only case where I think regulation is needed.
Edit: The reason why I think gambling should be regulated more so than the other addictive substances (sugar, alcohol, the horse cosmetic) is because gambling doesn’t give you a concrete product. Unlike the others, gambling is getting the chance to obtain your desired product while the others guarantee a product to use.
When it’s as obvious of a scam as this post shows, I don’t really I have any sympathy. There are other games where it’s more cleverly implemented but even then I still lean towards the fault of consumers.
I am not going to blame the chocolate factory for getting someone obese. Sugar is addictive yes, but everything can be to a certain point and it’s a person’s responsibility to manage these potential addictions.
CS2 is fine and it feels like CSGO, except the nades were updated. If you want to go nostalgic you can go play the other CS games.
I understand preserving a game is important, but this isn’t a single-player game, this is a game that they have to continuously host and manage, which costs money. Valve wanted to update the game, and they probably didn’t want to have 2 games fighting each other. You can be mad at their strategy, but CSGO was a free multiplayer game (yes yes it was $15 or $20 dollars years ago), and they decided to change it into an updated free multiplayer game.
If you want to call them scummy because they slightly changed a game you paid for, go for it. Never buy another Valve product and go exclusively GOG.
Having said all that, I would be on your side if and only if we were talking about a single-player game that does not need to be managed 24/7.
My argument is that companies shouldn’t charge full price for an unfinished game. Your argument is that the funding from early access could help the company develop the game. I believe a compromise would be to lower the price of the unfinished hand. It could be actual price=completion percent * full price. If they can’t do anything as fluid as that then at the very least there should be a significant flat reduction.
What I don’t like is the implication you made that since everyone is doing it, then it’s ok.
It’s the precedent they set for the gaming industry that is appalling. This time it was “only” 3 years but what if it becomes the norm for games to be unfinished after 10+ years? Sure Larion Studios is a darling in everyone’s eyes because the game turned out well, but others will see this enormous positivety and think “hey as long as we finish it ‘eventually’, then it’s ok to do this.” This is bad for gaming in general.
You got one? :o I thought the pre-purchase batches would be sent in March.